alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National Center for Immunization & Respiratory Diseases

Change in Age Indication for Flucelvax Quadrivalent

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH

Influenza Division, NCIRD, CDC

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

October 20, 2021
Acknowledgements

Influenza Division

Elif Alyanak

Noreen Alabi

Lenee Blanton

Lynnette Brammer

Alicia Budd

Jessie Chung

Vivien Dugan

Jill Ferdinands

Brendan Flannery

Alicia Fry

Krista Kniss

Manish Patel

Melissa Rolfes

Tim Uyeki

Immunization Safety Office

Karen Broder

Frank Destefano

Anamika Dua

Penina Haber

Tom Shimabukuro

Immunization Services Division

Sam Graitcer

Andrew Kroger

Amy Parker Fiebelkorn

Jeanne Santoli
Change in Age Indication for Flucelvax Quadrivalent 

Cell culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine:

 Age indication changed from ≥4 years to ≥2 years (approved by FDA in March, 2021).

 On October 14, 2021, FDA approved for ages ≥6 months.

 Data presented at June 2021 ACIP meeting

– Randomized trial of immunogenicity and safety compared to licensed egg-based 

quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (Afluria Quadrivalent), among 2,402 

children ages 6 to ≤47 months

• Flucelvax Quadrivalent: 0.5 mL/dose

• Afluria Quadrivalent: 0.25 mL/dose for 6 through 35 months; 

0.5 mL/dose for 36 through 47 months.

– Prespecified noninferiority criteria met for Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratios 

and difference in seroconversion rates for all four viruses

– Rates of solicited and unsolicited adverse events similar between groups
Influenza Vaccines by Age Indication, United States, 2021–22 Influenza Season

Vaccine type 0 through 6

months

6 through 23 

months

2 through 17 

years

18 through 49 

years

50 through 64 

years

≥65 

years

IIV4s Standard-dose, 

unadjuvanted

inactivated

(IIV4)

Afluria Quadrivalent

Fluarix Quadrivalent

FluLaval Quadrivalent

Fluzone Quadrivalent

Cell culture-based 

inactivated (ccIIV4)

Flucelvax Quadrivalent

Adjuvanted

inactivated (aIIV4)

Fluad Quadrivalent

High-dose 

inactivated (HD-IIV4)

Fluzone High-Dose 

Quadrivalent

RIV4 Recombinant

(RIV4)

Flublok Quadrivalent

LAIV4 Live attenuated

(LAIV4)

FluMist Quadrivalent

All vaccines expected for 2021-22 are quadrivalent (i.e., contain hemagglutinin derived from four viruses:

one influenza A(H1N1), one influenza A(H3N2), one influenza B/Victoria and one influenza B/Yamagata.

IIV4=quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine RIV4=quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine LAIV4=quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine

Not approved for age group Egg-based Not egg-based
Inactivated Influenza Vaccines (IIV4s) for Children 

6 through 35 months 

 Five IIV4s are now approved for this age group

 Dose volumes vary: 

– Fluarix Quadrivalent 0.5 mL/dose

– FluLaval Quadrivalent 0.5 mL/dose

– Flucelvax Quadrivalent 0.5 mL/dose

– Afluria Quadrivalent 0.25 mL/dose

– Fluzone Quadrivalent 0.25 mL/dose or 0.5 mL/dose
Change in Age Indication for Flucelvax Quadrivalent 

Will be reflected in 

– Online version of Table of available vaccines for 2021-22 

(https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/2021-2022/aciptable.htm ) 

– Brief summary of ACIP recommendations
Thank you!
# C_2014112EN.01003701.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/37

---

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar (HARRY’S BAR)

(Case T-711/13)

2014/C 112/49

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 given in joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 given in joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 378 031

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 995/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 946/2012-1

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2940 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2940

     To extend the program of block grants to States for temporary 
 assistance for needy families and related programs through September 
                               30, 2019.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2019

    Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois (for himself and Mrs. Walorski) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the program of block grants to States for temporary 
 assistance for needy families and related programs through September 
                               30, 2019.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES 
              PROGRAM AND RELATED PROGRAMS THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019.

    Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section 1108(b) of 
the Social Security Act shall continue through September 30, 2019, in 
the manner authorized for fiscal year 2018, and out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose.
                                 <all>
```
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 40 5- CR Rob e rt Pa ul M CD AN IEL , Appellant
v. The STA TE of Texas, Appellee Fr om the 379th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2003-CR-6850 Honora ble Ron Rang el, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: March 3, 2010 AFF I RMED Ap pe lla nt p le d tr ue to v iol a tin g the c on dit ion s o f h is d e fe rr e d a dju dic a tio n c omm un ity
su pe rv isi on . H is guil t w a s a dju dic a te d, and he wa s sente nc e d to fiv e y e ars ’ co nf ine me nt, le ss c re dit for time ser

ved, and a fine of $1,200. Appellant’s c ourt-appointed attorney filed a br ief c ontaining a prof essional eva luation of the record in a ccor dance with An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes the appea l has no merit. Counsel provided a ppellant with a copy

of the brie f and04
- 09
- 00 40 5- CR

- 2- informed him of his rig ht to review the rec ord and f ile his own brief. Se e Nic ho ls v. S tate , 954 S.W. 2d 83 , 8 5- 86 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 19 97 , n o p e t.) ; Br un s v . S tate , 924 S.W .2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Appe llant did not file a pr o s e brief. After revie wing the re cord a nd counsel’s br ief, we ag ree the appe al is frivolous and without
me ri t. T he ju dgmen t of the tr ia l c ourt is a ff ir me d. Ap pe llate c ouns e l’ s mo tio n to wi thd ra w i s g rante d. Nic ho ls , 9 54 S.W. 2d a t 86 ; Bruns , 924 S.W .2d at 177 n.1.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH
No. 10-1529.

#### Shannon Kelly, Petitioner v. West Virginia Board of Law Examiners, et al.

565 U.S. 826, 132 S. Ct. 118,

181 L. Ed. 2d 42,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5329,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 418 Fed. Appx. 203.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3083 

To authorize the Asset and Infrastructure Review Commission of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs to meet in years other than 2022 and 2023. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2019 

Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Asset and Infrastructure Review Commission of the Department of Veterans Affairs to meet 

in years other than 2022 and 2023. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘AIR Acceleration Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSET AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

6 REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT 

7 OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO MEET IN YEARS 

8 OTHER THAN 2022 AND 2023. 

9 Section 202(d) of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 

10 (Public Law 115–182) is amended to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3083 IH

1 ‘‘(d) MEETINGS.— 

2 ‘‘(1) PUBLIC MEETINGS.—Each meeting of the 

3 Commission shall be open to the public. 

4 ‘‘(2) OPEN PARTICIPATION.—All the pro5 ceedings, information, and deliberations of the Com6 mission shall be available for review by the public.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### *State, Petitioner, v. Devon, Respondent,*

No. 91996-8.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 24958-1-III, July 9, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1045. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
No. 10-10259.

#### Anthony Jackson, Petitioner v. Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York Department of Correctional Services.

565 U.S. 832, 132 S. Ct. 132,

181 L. Ed. 2d 52,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5375.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of

certiorari to the Supreme Court 3rd Judicial District of New York, Albany County, denied.
Cuando te tienen que 

pinchar el ojo con una aguja, 

hay que tratar de mirar 

para otro lado lo más 

que se pueda. 

Marlene, 68 años, Nueva York

#CDCConsejos

La degeneración macular es una de las 

principales causas de la ceguera. Y fumar 

duplica las probabilidades de contraerla. 

Eso fue lo que le pasó a Marlene. 

Para salvarle la vista, tienen que ponerle 

inyecciones en el ojo todos los meses. 

Usted puede dejar de fumar. 

LLAME AL 1-855-DÉJELO-YA.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

The undersignedChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officerof NIC Inc. (the “Company) each hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or78o(d)); and

(2)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: November 6, 2006   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      |   |
| /s/ Jeffery S. Fraser     |   |   |
| Jeffery S. Fraser         |   |
| Chairman of the Board and |   |
| Chief Executive Officer   |   |
|                      |   |
| /s/ Eric J. Bur           |   |   |
| Eric J. Bur               |   |
| Chief Financial Officer   |   |
|                           |        |  |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

This certification “accompanies”the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities andExchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of theForm 10-Q, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in suchfiling).

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18366]



[[Page 37369]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1247-019]


NorAm Energy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

July 6, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 4, 1998, NorAm Energy Services, Inc. 
(NES), filed a Notice of Change in Status regarding the acquisition by 
certain affiliates of generation. NES states in the Notice that this 
change in status should not affect NES' authority to make sales at 
market-based rates pursuant to its Rate Schedule FERC No. 1, as 
revised. NES also requests that it be permitted to report future 
changes in status to the Commission in an updated market analysis that 
NES will file with the Commission every three years.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before July 13, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18366 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**DEFENSE LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS**

**FINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE (FPRC) TRAINING**

**AGENDA**

***Meeting Goal: Share and Learn; ask lots of questions!***

**We appreciate your feedback on this training, so that we can improve it going forward.**

**Please submit comments to financehq@dla.mil**
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17373]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[Treasury Directive Number 13-04]


Delegation of Authority Relating to the United States Enrichment 
Corporation Privatization

June 24, 1998.
    1. Purpose. This Directive makes certain delegations to the 
Assistant Secretary (Financial Markets) relating to the United States 
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) privatization.
    2. Background. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended by the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2938), and the 
USEC Privatization Act (Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-335) 
(collectively, the ``Acts'') authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to 
approve or disapprove the USEC Board's determinations that the method 
of transfer and the terms and conditions for the transfer of USEC to 
the private sector meet certain statutory requirements under the Acts. 
Treasury Order (TO) 103-04, ``Delegation of Authority Relating to the 
United States Enrichment Corporation Privatization,'' delegates to the 
Under Secretary for Domestic Finance the Secretary's authority under 
the Acts relating to the USEC privatization.
    3. Delegation. The duties, powers, rights, and obligations of the 
Secretary of the Treasury which are vested in the Under Secretary for 
Domestic Finance pursuant to TO 103-04 are hereby redelegated to the 
Assistant Secretary (Financial Markets).
    4. Redelegation. The Assistant Secretary (Financial Markets) may 
redelegate in writing such of the authorities granted under this 
Directive as the Assistant Secretary (Financial Markets) deems 
appropriate.
    5. Authority. TO 103-04, ``Delegation of Authority Relating to the 
United States Enrichment Corporation Privatization.''
    6. Expiration Date. This Directive shall expire three years from 
the date of issuance unless superseded or cancelled prior to that date.
    7. Office of Primary Interest. Office of the Under Secretary for 
Domestic Finance.
John D. Hawke, Jr.,
Under Secretary for Domestic Finance.
[FR Doc. 98-17373 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
No. 09-1461.

#### Association of Christian Schools International, et al., Petitioners v. Roman Stearns, et al.

562 U.S. 975, 131 S. Ct. 456,

178 L. Ed. 2d 314,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7862.

October 12, 2010.

Motion of Catholic League, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 640.
Data from Alcoa Aluminum, Rockdale, TX (4 files)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                              EXHIBIT 11.1
                                     ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.
                                 Computation of per Share Net Income as
                                  Disclosed in Item 13 of Form 10-KSB

                                                        Five years ended June 30,

                                      2008           2007           2006           2005           2004
                              ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------
<S>                           <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Computation of net income
     per share:

         BASIC
         Weighted average
         number of primary
         shares outstanding      2,079,734      2,048,626      2,012,761      2,021,234      2,027,326
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============

Net income ................   $  3,421,869   $  2,544,720   $  1,558,016   $    978,920   $    960,826
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============


Per share-basic ...........   $       1.65   $       1.24   $        .77   $        .48   $        .48
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============



         DILUTED
         Weighted average
         number of primary
         shares outstanding      2,103,836      2,077,664      2,049,455      2,043,208      2,044,688
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============

         Net effect of
         dilutive stock
         options based on
         treasury stock
         method ...........         24,102         29,038         36,694         21,974         17,362
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============

Net income ................   $  3,421,869   $  2,544,720   $  1,558,016   $    978,920   $    960,826
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============

Per share-diluted .........   $       1.63   $       1.23   $        .76   $        .48   $        .47
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============

                                                  30
</TABLE>
No. 89-624 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN THE MATTER OF THE CUSTODY OF A.O., 

M.O., and A.O., Minor Children, 

PAMELA PIERRE, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

DAVID L. OSBORN, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin, 

The Honorable Larry W. Moran, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Stuart R. Whitehair, Bozeman, Montana 

For Respondent: 

James D. McKenna, Bozeman, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: March 29, 1990 

Decided: April 12, 1990 
Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

David L. Osborn appeals from an order of the Eighteenth 

Judicial District, Gallatin County, denying his motion to dismiss 

for lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody 

Jurisdiction Act. Sections 40-7-101, et seq. 

On reviewing the record, the Court concludes that the District 

Court's order is not an appealable order, and therefore this appeal 

should be dismissed. Rule 1 (b) , M.R.App. P., enumerates the 

specific matters which can be appealed from District Court. The 

order appealed from in this case merely denied a motion to dismiss. 

An order denying a motion to dismiss is not included within the 

appealable orders specified in Rule 1, M.R.App.P. There is 

therefore no support for this appeal; accordingly it is dismissed. 

Let the remittitur issue forthwith. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company. 

fy Chief Justice